Protestant View of Mariology

[Porknpie]

One of the Protestant Churches held those councils. LOL. Just being a little silly. You are right on everything else you said. :thumbsup:If the CC cannot teach infallibly then the Protestant churches cannot either. If that is the case then truth is unknowable. If that is the case then why trust the bible…

Come to think of it, Arizona probably uses the KIng James…and probably not the original KJV which had 73 books in the bible…the same as the Catholics. So he’s following someone…a tradition of man…who removed 7 books out of the original KJV 1511.

Question is who is he following that did this and does he know who did it?

 

[joe371]

Come to think of it, Arizona probably uses the KIng James…and probably not the original KJV which had 73 books in the bible…the same as the Catholics. So he’s following someone…a tradition of man…who removed 7 books out of the original KJV 1511.

Question is who is he following that did this and does he know who did it?

Every non-catholic follows tradition in some way…

 

[joe371]

The issue about the IC isn’t a uniqueness of relationship, but a uniqueness of nature and a uniqueness of salvation.

Do we at least agree that what was conceived in Mary was from the holy Spirit? Since you keep bring up the word spouse then I will too, Surley you could entertain the possibility that the Holy Spirit could be Mary’s mystical spouse, as opposed to carnal spouse?

“But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

 

[SteveVH]

Again, the image of the Holy Spirit conceiving Christ in Mary is the reason why He is referred to as the Spouse of Mary. That is sexual.

It is? I don’t think so. It is the union of God with mankind. The union of God with man is the entire purpose of Christ’s coming. And this union is realized in Mary’s conception as well as in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Christ’s relationship to the Church has nothing to do with conceiving a child, so it is not sexual. Huge difference.

Wait a minute. You began by insisting that the term “spousal” had to mean “sexual”. When I proved that it did not (Bride of Christ, etc.) you then claim that because it involves a child that it must mean sexual in that context. But no one has ever said that except you. So, one more time. We do not believe that God had a sexual relationship with Mary. I hope that is clear. I don’t know how God can say “let there be light” and there is light. And I don’t know how being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit produced the same result as human intercourse. Well, all except it was the Son of God that was born, there’s that little thing. But there has never been a more intimate relationship with a human being than God has with Mary. It was not through sex that she became pregnant. It was through a divine union. Yet still a spousal union resulting in a child.

God the Father, which also is a further complication of this understanding. If the Father is the father of Jesus, and Mary is the mother and the Holy Spirit is the Spouse of Mary, then either you believe in modalism (that the Persons of God are only modes of the same person, which is a condemned heresy), or there is something sick and perverted going on here. In both instances, it is a blaspheme against God.

I’m not sure that I have ever read something as offensive as this. I’m done here.

 

[joe371]

Wait a minute. You began by insisting that the term “spousal” had to mean “sexual”. When I proved that it did not (Bride of Christ, etc.) you then claim that because it involves a child that it must mean sexual in that context. But no one has ever said that except you. So, one more time. We do not believe that God had a sexual relationship with Mary. I hope that is clear. I don’t know how God can say “let there be light” and there is light. And I don’t know how being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit produced the same result as human intercourse. Well, all except it was the Son of God that was born, there’s that little thing. But there has never been a more intimate relationship with a human being than God has with Mary. It was not through sex that she became pregnant. It was through a divine union. Yet still a spousal union resulting in a child.

Exactly…

 

[Arizona_Samson]

The voice of* The Most High God* has proclaimed them false to you personally?

Yes, in fact He has! Don’t you hear the voice of God while reading His word? If not, why not?

Have you not read the promise of Prov 30:5? Does the word of God return to Him empty or succeed in the manner for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11)?

Hasn’t God “in these last days spoken to us in His Son” ( Heb 1:2), whose “sheep hear His voice” (John 10:27)?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Of course Mary was human there is no denial of this, however the carnal aspect has zero to do with the spiritual in relationship with the Holy Spirit. Mother of God which brings into play the spiritual of St Paul, death of the flesh, death of the soul. along with pain, suffering etc.

The point debated is the Soul of Mary in relation to sanctifying Grace, Gods essence in not in question[depending on who your speaking to anyway] and lack of Grace which occurs through sin in non existent, therefore so to it follows Marys state of grace at the Incarnation, Full of Grace, brings into play the Divinity of Christs nature which was not severed from sanctifying Grace thus the Incarnation of the Living God, 4th ecumenical council. Fully Human and Fully Divine [no lack of grace/no sin from the law] No division of Humanity and Divinity, God did not subject himself to a lacking State of Grace through being what God could not be, separated from His own Grace. How does one separate themselves from Grace. the world-sin.

Both were not separated from Sanctifying Grace, God Never, Mary depending on where one see’s as most fitting. Mary being human and held up by Gods Grace and through cooperation.

This is a circular conversation and complete denial of the Incarnation and the Ecumenical Council.

Mary being persevered at Conception or thereafter changes what?

[The only question is when did the singular act of sanctifying Grace occur.]

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, in fact He has! Don’t you hear the voice of God while reading His word? If not, why not?

Have you not read the promise of Prov 30:5? Does the word of God return to Him empty or succeed in the manner for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11)?

Hasn’t God “in these last days spoken to us in His Son” ( Heb 1:2), whose “sheep hear His voice” (John 10:27)?

Arizona, so the pillar and foundation of Truth is the bible…is that what you believe?

 

[LauraThomson]

Good references to this subject are from St. Louis de Montfort and Blessed Catherine Emmerich. St. Louis de Montfort wrote extensively about the Blessed Virgin Mary in regards to her holiness and her sinlessness, as well as her role in our redemption. Blessed Catherine Emmerich was a mystic who had very detailed visions of the lives of our Lady and of our Lord. Do a little reading and you’ll soon discover that Church doctrine is correct and our Protestant brothers and sisters have been mislead in the Truth.

 

[joe371]

Arizona Samson;10902541]Yes, in fact He has! Don’t you hear the voice of God while reading His word? If not, why not?

So, the voice of the Most High God has proclaimed them false to you personally, but the voice of God did not and does not do the same for the CC? How can I know that your claims are true?

Have you not read the promise of Prov 30:5? Does the word of God return to Him empty or succeed in the manner for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11)?

What if the voice of God tells you one thing and me the opposite? How can I know that you are right?

Hasn’t God “in these last days spoken to us in His Son” ( Heb 1:2), whose “sheep hear His voice” (John 10:27)?

Was Jesus talking to me, you, every Christian, or His fledgling Church leaders when he said:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth…John 16

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Arizona,

So if you could, you would go back to the Synods of Hippo and Carthage and tell them they were not members of the Catholic Church ? If so,** which church was it that held these councils?**

They, like Mr. Augustine, were members of a church that had never even heard of a supposed assumption of Mary, as well as many other of the doctrines which you hold dear.

So exactly how Catholic could such a church be??

What would you say to St Augustine in response to his words below? I would like to hear that conversation too!

You DO have a dilemma here…either the Catholic Church is infallible or it is not. If the latter, you have no assurance that the books in your bible are inerrant and inspired and you most certainly don’t have the right books. So where you going to go to find out which ones are? There were nearly 300 writings of which the Catholic Church selected 27.

Still no dilemma here, other than the one you’ve created in your own mind.

The early church did not “select” 27 writings, they received what God declared to be θεόπνευστος.

 

[joe371]

Arizona Samson;10902590]They, like Mr. Augustine, were members of a church that had never even heard of a supposed assumption of Mary, as well as many other of the doctrines which you hold dear.

You and I agree that Mr. Augustine belonged to the Catholic Church - right?

The early church did not “select” 27 writings, they received what God declared to be θεόπνευστος.

What was the name of that church, and does it still exist today?

 

[Porknpie]

They, like Mr. Augustine, were members of a church that had never even heard of a supposed assumption of Mary, as well as many other of the doctrines which you hold dear.

So what would you say to St Augustine about his not being in the Catholic Church? He’d probaby ask you if you believed in the Eucharist…if you said that you did not…what would he say to you?

Interesting that St Ignatius first calls the Church of Christ “Catholic” in 110 ad. St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John…who was taught himself by Christ.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Still no dilemma here, other than the one you’ve created in your own mind

The early church did not “select” 27 writings, they received what God declared to be θεόπνευστος.

The Catholic Church compared the writings to the Tradition passed on by the apostles to determine which books were inspired and inerrant.

No you have a big dilemma. You trust that the books in your bible are inspired and inerrant because the Catholic Church told you so…but i bet you only have 66…7 of the books of the original KJV removed by a printing press to save money.

Arizona, you hold a bible written by, for about the Catholic Church…the Written Word Of God, profitable for teaching and correction, but canonized by the Catholic Church to have a universal set of readings to be used at Mass.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, in fact He has! Don’t you hear the voice of God while reading His word? If not, why not?

Have you not read the promise of Prov 30:5? Does the word of God return to Him empty or succeed in the manner for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11)?

Hasn’t God “in these last days spoken to us in His Son” ( Heb 1:2), whose “sheep hear His voice” (John 10:27)?

Yes you have Christ and the hope and reality of Salvation is documented. You do this in neglect of the Martyrs and Saints whose cooperation with Grace persevered in accordance with Christs plan. Thus the very reality Christ came and established with Mary and the Communion of Saints, the aide of Grace through the Sacramants you neglect this in favor of perseverance in Gods Grace alone against the law.

God Bless you my prayers are with you in perseverance. I’m aware of the path. How many do you suppose persevere till the end on it?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

So, the voice of the Most High God has proclaimed them false to you personally

Yes, He has, as I’ve answered previously.

Let’s stay within the context of the conversation, shall we?

PRMerger asked the following questions:

*How do you know there aren’t many gods?

That god isn’t 4 persons in one?

That Mary was not a virgin?

That Jesus stayed dead?*

I responded that I know the above to be false because God has declared them false.

but the voice of God did not and does not do the same for the CC?

If I’m not mistaken the CC also teaches that the above four questions are false.

How can I know that your claims are true?

By following Acts 17:11 and ** “examining the Scriptures to see if these things were so.”**

 

[KathleenGee]

The Orthodox, from how I understand it, speak of the dormition of Mary.

What is missing in Sola Scriptura is the history of salvation after Christ’s death and resurrection. To find it, you look to the history of the Church and see early on how Mary was venerated. There is even an ancient painting of her in the catecombs in Rome, these Roman burials of the dead where Mass was said during persecutions in the early hundreds.

In Orthodox tradition, ‘something shocking’ happened at Mary’s passing, but they do not go any further to describe it. If it were a Latin, perhaps there would be some kind of theological reflection. But the Orthodox are very comfortable with mysteries.

Regarding the Assumption of Mary as dogma, check out the word, ‘assumption’. It comes from ‘assumed’. And realize this dogma was given us only in 1954. That is one thousand nine hundred and fifty four years to reflect on Mary’s sinless life and considering the body is that which leads one to sin, and the wages of sin is death, yes, in consideration of Mary we assume she was gloriously taken into heaven, following Our Lord, as she did not sin.

There are Catholic theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who could not theologically get pass the hurdles of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. However, a humble Franciscan John Duns Scott did, and agreed, Mary was in need of redemption because she was a creature, and the effects of Original Sin are there.

But Mary as Mary was chosen by God to become the mother of Christ, True God and True Man, she was redeemed at her conception, and also hers reflecting a more perfect redemption.

Mary was uniquely made by God the Father. And she says she is blessed of all women.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst all women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

What is missing in this discussion is the profound effect one single sin makes on our soul and person.

 

[KathleenGee]

Also, Catholics are followers of Christ.

Regarding our so called ‘errors’ in faith and morals, has any non-Catholic here ever read the universal Catholic Catechism and the section on morality to see what we truly believe???

Do you believe everything a preacher man teaches? Text without tradition…is text without Church. Christ established His Church, not competing dissenting factions.

 

[Porknpie]

They, like Mr. Augustine, were members of a church that had never even heard of a supposed assumption of Mary, as well as many other of the doctrines which you hold dear.

The Lord sent Elijah to heaven in a chariot. Would Jesus not take his mother incorruptible in the same way. Interesting Arizona, that no one, anywhere claims to have Mary’s remains and not at any time in history. Very much like her Son.

Arizona, do you believe that she had children after Jesus? I’m sensing that you do. Perhaps this is what you mean by other doctrines? Here’s the words of St John Chrysostom below. The Catholic Church believed before the bible was canonized, that she did not. For that matter, neither did any of the 16th century reformers. If you believe this…you are following a tradition of man…a recent one at that.

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is missing in this discussion is the profound effect one single sin makes on our soul and person.

Yes it is, and the polar opposite of the Divinity of God to it. The focus is on Marys carnal state and not Gods Divinity in relation.

 

[KathleenGee]

Gary,

PR’s visual of the used bottle of oil made more impact on me…

There seems to be a restriction on God allowing to create a mother, a queen, fit to bear His Son. With God, all things are possible, as Gabriel declared.